The January 2026 Transfer Window

[KentExile]

3 minutes ago, SuperBrfc said:

If we still need around £20m a year from the owners after all these years, as the hierarchy keep alluding to, what is he doing exactly that keeps the owners happy with him?

Stopping people from bothering them?

If so, then I am sure one of the receptionists at my local GP could do a vey similar job for a much more reasonable salary

Edited yesterday at 14:38 by KentExile

[JHRover]

5 minutes ago, SuperBrfc said:

It came to light last year I think it was, that Pasha is on a salary of £500k a year. He's been here for 10 years, officially.

Even if he was on lower than that in the years 2015-2023, he has still accumulated millions by way of salary in over a decade.

If we still need around £20m a year from the owners after all these years, as the hierarchy keep alluding to, what is he doing exactly in his role that keeps the owners satisfied with him being their man here?

In recent accounts we have assumed that Waggott was the 'highest paid director' and on £400k+ a year to be Chief Executive.

Now that he's been sent packing and we are 8 months into the old routine of having no CEO it is going to be interesting reading the next set of accounts to see whether that 'highest paid director' figure has significantly changed.

Of course it should have dropped massively by virtue of Waggott leaving and not being replaced and having no CEO, so if it has stayed constant or even increased it leads to more questions about who is doing what down there, especially when the curtain twitcher has allegedly spent quite a long time recently out of the country, during the busiest time of the season, just before a critical transfer window, which begs the question of how he is performing the role he is getting paid very handsomely to do.

[RoversClitheroe]

I'll tell you now I high doubt Moussa Baradji signs.

TGH article article from Alan came out after a loss saying we were trying to purchase, sounds dead in the water to me.

[bluebruce]

15 minutes ago, SuperBrfc said:

It came to light last year I think it was, that Pasha is on a salary of £500k a year. He's been here for 10 years, officially.

Even if he was on lower than that in the years 2015-2023, he has still accumulated millions by way of salary in over a decade.

If we still need around £20m a year from the owners after all these years, as the hierarchy keep alluding to, what is he doing exactly in his role that keeps the owners satisfied with him being their man here?

Kissing their arses.

Edited yesterday at 14:49 by bluebruce

[bluebruce]

52 minutes ago, KentExile said:

I have seen arrangements where the club have decided against triggering the buy option

I have seen arrangements where players have asked the club not to trigger the option.  This has typically been when the player was only on loan because he had fallen out with his manager at his parent club and either than manager had been sacked (or if one or the other club have been promoted/relegated) meaning a change in circumstance

I have seen arrangements such as I have described where another club offering more becomes involved, and they player has been "flipped".  I cannot recall any instances where because of this, the player did not move to the initial loan club on a permanent deal first, before then being sold on

 

Look at the Harvey Elliott situation at Villa, because of the contractual situation, Villa cannot play him, otherwise the purchase becomes automatic, which includes the wage.  It has to, otherwise Villa would not worry about triggering it, as Elliott would tell them he doesn't want to move, and everyone (apart from Liverpool) would be happy

 

That seems garbled on my part, hope it makes sense

It makes sense, and I've seen those before too, but I could have sworn I'd also seen one or two where the player either simply didn't want to go there or couldn't agree terms. But if what Wilsden is saying is right then perhaps I've imagined it, or it was in the distant past.

Did he not play a game early in the season for Yverdon? Would that not prevent him playing for a third club this season? Can't remember if that's a calendar year thing or a season thing (which would seem odd as leagues have different season dates).

[lraC]

40 minutes ago, JHRover said:

They're not doing a very good job of it then because they continue to say £20 million+ a year is needed even after all the steps they have taken over the last 4 years and massive cost cuts. Maybe time the owners entrusted their cost cutting to people who actually know what they are doing?

I agree and do wonder if some of the savings are paid out in bonuses to those entrenched at Ewood.

I do also think that the funds sent over the last 3 - 4 years are a lot less than the £20m but stand to be corrected, by anyone who knows, what has actually been sent/received from the owners.

[KentExile]

8 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

It makes sense, and I've seen those before too, but I could have sworn I'd also seen one or two where the player either simply didn't want to go there or couldn't agree terms. But if what Wilsden is saying is right then perhaps I've imagined it, or it was in the distant past.

Did he not play a game early in the season for Yverdon? Would that not prevent him playing for a third club this season? Can't remember if that's a calendar year thing or a season thing (which would seem odd as leagues have different season dates).

He played 1 game in Switzerland

As per AI & therefore we should await Wilsden to confirm this.... (thanks in advance Wilsden)

Under FIFA regulations, a professional football player can be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season, but is only eligible to play in official matches for a maximum of two of those clubs in that period. 

An exception to the "play for two clubs" rule exists for players moving between clubs in associations with overlapping seasons (e.g., leagues starting in summer/autumn as opposed to winter/spring, or vice versa), who may be eligible to play in official matches for a third club. 

These rules primarily apply to professional leagues that fall under FIFA's transfer regulations. In some lower-tier or non-contract football leagues, local rules may be different, and players have been seen to move between more clubs in a single season. 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 15:06 by KentExile

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

It makes sense, and I've seen those before too, but I could have sworn I'd also seen one or two where the player either simply didn't want to go there or couldn't agree terms. But if what Wilsden is saying is right then perhaps I've imagined it, or it was in the distant past.

Did he not play a game early in the season for Yverdon? Would that not prevent him playing for a third club this season? Can't remember if that's a calendar year thing or a season thing (which would seem odd as leagues have different season dates).

This is covered by the below:

 

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, KentExile said:

He played 1 game in Switzerland

As per AI & therefore we should await Wilsden to confirm this.... (thanks in advance Wilsden)

Under FIFA regulations, a professional football player can be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season, but is only eligible to play in official matches for a maximum of two of those clubs in that period. 

An exception to the "play for two clubs" rule exists for players moving between clubs in associations with overlapping seasons (e.g., leagues starting in summer/autumn as opposed to winter/spring, or vice versa), who may be eligible to play in official matches for a third club. 

These rules primarily apply to professional leagues that fall under FIFA's transfer regulations. In some lower-tier or non-contract football leagues, local rules may be different, and players have been seen to move between more clubs in a single season. 

 

 

I must have read your mind lol 

[davulsukur]

5 days until the Hull game, not even a whisper of a player joining. 

Assume Ismael will just shift the goal posts when asked if he's annoyed at not having players in as he wanted/expected.

"January is a difficult time to sign players, the club are trying, yada, yada, yada."

[KentExile]

4 minutes ago, davulsukur said:

5 days until the Hull game, not even a whisper of a player joining. 

Assume Ismael will just shift the goal posts when asked if he's annoyed at not having players in as he wanted/expected.

"January is a difficult time to sign players, the club are trying, yada, yada, yada."

Pretty sure they need to be registered to play by noon on Friday to play at the weekend, so need to be done in under 3 days

 

Edited yesterday at 15:24 by KentExile

[bluebruce]

23 minutes ago, KentExile said:

He played 1 game in Switzerland

As per AI & therefore we should await Wilsden to confirm this.... (thanks in advance Wilsden)

Under FIFA regulations, a professional football player can be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season, but is only eligible to play in official matches for a maximum of two of those clubs in that period. 

An exception to the "play for two clubs" rule exists for players moving between clubs in associations with overlapping seasons (e.g., leagues starting in summer/autumn as opposed to winter/spring, or vice versa), who may be eligible to play in official matches for a third club. 

These rules primarily apply to professional leagues that fall under FIFA's transfer regulations. In some lower-tier or non-contract football leagues, local rules may be different, and players have been seen to move between more clubs in a single season. 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

This is covered by the below:

 

Ta, so he couldn't be flipped in this January window if a team actually wanted to play him (and if they didn't they may as well let us keep him). Other than to a team in the MLS or something like that, with a weirdly timed season. Sounds like he will almost definitely be here to the summer.

[KentExile]

1 minute ago, bluebruce said:

 

Ta, so he couldn't be flipped in this January window if a team actually wanted to play him (and if they didn't they may as well let us keep him). Other than to a team in the MLS or something like that, with a weirdly timed season. Sounds like he will almost definitely be here to the summer.

That's my take on it

Edited yesterday at 15:32 by KentExile

[davulsukur]

7 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Pretty sure they need to be registered to play by noon on Friday to play at the weekend, so need to be done in under 3 days

 

lol, even better

[KentExile]

2 minutes ago, davulsukur said:

lol, even better

and even sooner if we want them to have a training session with their new teammates, which would  probably be useful

Edited yesterday at 15:35 by KentExile

[KentExile]

13 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

 

Ta, so he couldn't be flipped in this January window if a team actually wanted to play him (and if they didn't they may as well let us keep him). Other than to a team in the MLS or something like that, with a weirdly timed season. Sounds like he will almost definitely be here to the summer.

Same applies to TGH unless Birmingham want to use him themselves (as Stoke did with Baker last season), as he played for them twice before moving here

Edited yesterday at 15:44 by KentExile

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

 

Ta, so he couldn't be flipped in this January window if a team actually wanted to play him (and if they didn't they may as well let us keep him). Other than to a team in the MLS or something like that, with a weirdly timed season. Sounds like he will almost definitely be here to the summer.

The FIFA reg allowing a player to play for a third club has conditions linked to it.

One of these (re minimum of length of contract) means this reg can’t apply for him until our season has ended. 

 

[Tomphil2]

Baradji is just here to get fit and get himself a good move and the middlemen some commission.

He's looking very much like a player this club should be buying and building a team around but ladies and gents we are quite simply just a vehicle now for others benefit.

That's why those running it do not want a good ambitious manager they just need their own coach in place to go along with the 'model'.

[KentExile]

l

22 minutes ago, davulsukur said:

lol, even better

lol, I just saw this on Rovers site and thought they have got one in (it was only a thumbnail in my defence)

False alarm people

Edited yesterday at 15:54 by KentExile

[DutchRover]

I was sceptical of the Baradji signing in the summer, given his injury, but the loan-to-buy deal made sense to protect us from that.

I have seen enough since he started playing to know he is miles ahead of Tavares and Henrikson, and probably TGH as a mid.

If we were even a vaguely competent outfit or actually following our alleged plan to sign talent, develop it and then sell them on, we would exercise his option now if we can, and sign him to a long deal like the one we did give to Henrikson. That, as we have found with Reyes at Barnsley, actually increases a players value when we inevitably sell anyone half decent in the summer. 

With the buy-option do we know when it can be exercised? Is it appearance related or just whenever we want? Is the contract here pre-agreed as part of the buy-option or could we negotiate a better contract now we have seen him and thereby increase our bargaining power when we sell him.

Oh wait Suhail and Gestede don't care about any of that....

Edited yesterday at 15:58 by DutchRover

[KentExile]

12 minutes ago, DutchRover said:

 

With the buy-option do we know when it can be exercised? Is it appearance related or just whenever we want? Is the contract here pre-agreed as part of the buy-option or could we negotiate a better contract now we have seen him and thereby increase our bargaining power when we sell him.

Oh wait Suhail and Gestede don't care about any of that....

as far as I am aware, the standard is "before the loan contract ends" (so either 31st May, or 30th June), but there could well be a clause added that includes a "must be activated before X date", and/or "optional fee which becomes compulsory after X appearances" etc

Baradji will have already agreed terms. possible future fee, wages, contract length etc are all  legally set as soon as a loan with an option completes.  There is nothing stopping them from offering him better/longer terms than have already been agreed once he signs, but of course they wont, otherwise Alebiosu would have ben given a new contract in Sept/October

Edited yesterday at 16:10 by KentExile

[briansol]

7 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Baradji is just here to get fit and get himself a good move and the middlemen some commission.

He's looking very much like a player this club should be buying and building a team around but ladies and gents we are quite simply just a vehicle now for others benefit.

That's why those running it do not want a good ambitious manager they just need their own coach in place to go along with the 'model'.

If he is successful, the club will convert the purchase option even just for selling directly to another club. Given that it was the failed medical that prevented a transfer where they agreed a fee, they certainly must have gotten a decent deal with the loan to purchase. The way the club spoke about the loan afterwards, sounded like a formality if they wanted to take up the option of permanent transfer.

[Angry_Pirate]

7 hours ago, TheRevAshton said:

Wouldn't mind if they went in for Bali Mumba, always looked a good player when i've watched him... they won't though!

Could be a LWB to be excited about. Him and Alebiosu might actually make this formation succeed.

[Tomphil2]

12 minutes ago, briansol said:

If he is successful, the club will convert the purchase option even just for selling directly to another club. Given that it was the failed medical that prevented a transfer where they agreed a fee, they certainly must have gotten a decent deal with the loan to purchase. The way the club spoke about the loan afterwards, sounded like a formality if they wanted to take up the option of permanent transfer.

Yep like flipping cars or houses you buy at auction, repair, spruce up then represent on the wider market to sell and profit in a short time.....and the agents get commission from the buy and the sell.

Now if we kept him for a full season and got some performances and results with him then he went for a big fee we can't really moan, you could even say good business.

However i think they are looking for the quick flip here and he'll be gone in summer for small profit, which doesn't really benefit anyone except player and agents etc.

[islander200]

3 hours ago, Hasta said:

That seems to have been pinched from here, but it would make sense. My gut feeling is people will make more money from him being elsewhere, so he will end up elsewhere. 

It wouldnt make sense for his Swiss team to agree to just loan him out for the final year of his contract so he must have signed an extension with them